BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Crichton of Clunie v the Laird of Bandoun. [1613] Mor 13443 (13 July 1613)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1613/Mor3113443-007.html Cite as:
[1613] Mor 13443
Might warning be given at the same term at which the order of redemption was used?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of reduction, pursued by Mr Robert Crichton of Clunie contra the Laird of Bandoun, it was opponed against the decreet of removing, that Clunie could not warn notwithstanding, because he was denuded in favour of ———— who, the time of the warning, stood heritably infeft to him. To the which it was answered, That the act of Parliament speaks only that warning shall be made at any term after the redemption, idque where there is a lawful order used, so the warning cannot be used at the same term; and farther, the act finds, that after the declarator the same may be drawn back, so that Clunie may either allege that the lands were renounced, or declared redeemed, and that he was infeft upon the redemption. The Lords, for the most part, were of this opinion, that the warning might be made at the same term at which the redemption was used; but they would not find pro or contra, only they found the reply noways relevant, except Clunie would say that he was re-infeft. Item, It was alleged thereafter, that ——had renounced in favour of Peter Hay, who was infeft, holding of the King. The Lords repelled the allgeance, as of before, because Clunie was never released, and so could not make a warning.
